|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
11-09-2010, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Well atleast mr maddox did make an reply i could understand, and maby my english is not good enough and i didnt explain exactly what about the vidio i was thinking...
As a bomber pilot i was realy facinatet about the AI crew, and the Heidi Girl. They have createt a full plane with tools that works outside the 3 d engine and made a populatet plane. This is a giant part of imersion, not all enjoys the 1 prob racing planes, but the big slow crew coffins. Oleg talked about this for some time ago, and since its not a priority, i thought A2A could be a good way to maby intigrate something like a crew AI for the player bombers. Im not a cocpit click all stuf guy, i tryed DCH Blac shark and in full real i simply gave up you need a darn Helo licence just to undertsand half of what you need to do.... I simply looked at the modular way they work and had an interest in the sound and AI module..... And i noticed thay said it could work with most 3d engines, so i thought of the 3d engine for SOW. I know things are not easy, but crew AI ís primarly run from the client, so there i could se the posibility of something like a crew AI without having a major load on the game it self.... well atleast i have tryed to be more specific what i wantet to show with this.. intension was not to start a flame fest or to agrovate or anoy anyone, it was just to show mr maddox and idea on how to incorpriate a crew AI for us bomber pilots.... Ltbear 
|
|
#2
11-09-2010, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with Icefire that for a combat flight sim the "nickel and dime" model is not that well suited. It's not so much the cost, it's the fact that it fragments the pool of multiplayer participants too much and it makes it difficult to have a proper portrayal of an entire theater with realistic introduction to service timelines.
That being said, it doesn't mean it has to be all black or white, does it now? FSX is abandoned and there's a gap in the market. You don't have to fly civilian birds and you don't have to like it, but if certain people buy SoW to fly a 3rd party payware add-on DC2 between London and Berlin, it partly funds OUR future combat expansions. With all due respect and no ill will whatsoever, are some of you oblivious to this potential for future growth and SoW's enhanced financial security, or is the need to make fun of other people's enjoyment so great that it overshadows simple practical thinking? Honest question here, i'm not trying to pick a fight, i just think that some of you are too eager to make fun of the non-combat crowd and are missing the big picture as a result. 
|
|
#3
11-09-2010, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Just a thought. Last edited by swiss; 11-09-2010 at 12:39 PM.
|
|
#4
11-09-2010, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for the overall design of the A2A spitfire, I think Oleg's is better. While the skin on the A2A Spittie is nothing less that phenomenal, the cockpit is nothing to write home about compared to the SOW Spit. The description of the engine (the planes, not the games) mechanics sounds exactly like what Oleg is already doing, and we already know that the game engine cannot even be compared. As for all the addon apoplexy going on...... just relax guys, the pay per plane thing does not work for WWII, and Oleg has never showed any interest in it, so it ain't gonna happen. Furthermore Oleg has already stated that online play will be protected, so I doubt very much that there is going to be any thing like the potential problems that some guys have been talking about. Of course I don't see a cheater hiding around every corner either.
|
|
#6
11-09-2010, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 If you mean that MS closed it down because they don't make enough money out of it, this also depends on the demographic you are targetting. It's true that the base FSX package is something one buys only once and the real money comes from the myriad of 3rd party add-ons, which MS doesn't see a penny out of. However, MS lost the combat crowd to IL2 so all they had was the civilian flyers. In that case it could be true that the profits didn't justify the expenses and effort required to keep making MSFS titles, since their target audience was limited during the last few years. In the case of SoW however, the main audience is the combat oriented folks. Again, the civilian fliers will generate more income for the add-on companies that the developer of the base engine, but that's not a problem when SoW's main base of support will be the combat flyers. The success of SoW doesn't rest on the civilian crowd, they are just a welcome bonus. A guy like that might spend 150$ on various add-ons and only $60 on buying a copy of the SoW engine to run them on, but that's still a few thousand people spending $60 each on SoW. The sim can't float on them alone, but that doesn't mean they're not a welcome boost in sales.
|
|
#7
11-09-2010, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There really is a player in the civilian flight sim market: X-Plane. Version 10 is expected around Christmas. It's better than MSF ever was even in version 9 (doesn't have the greatest stock graphics though).
A lot of 3rd party plane makers do "for pay" aircraft for X-Plane. The flight model for the sim, however, is VERY complex. Add ons work for civilian sims because of the higher level of immersion. Yes, complex start up procedures, weather effects, engine and fuel management, navigation, etc.. In these sims, you are totally engrossed in just flying the plane from A to B. The detail and complexity in each aircraft is amazing and players devote hundreds of hours perfecting their pilot skills in a individual model. So, third party "pay ware" is viable, even demanded. As we have seen, most combat simmers are not interested in all of the aspects of a civilian flight sim. It's too complex in its' own way. Combat simmers want to be shooting down other planes which is a totally different set of complexities and skills. So I am not sure a crossover is completely viable. No way is a combat sim today going to mimic all of the complexities of a flight sim. No way can a flight sim add in good combat from a resources point of view. Civilian flight sims max out your computer without any shooting. Combat flight sims max out your computer without truly complex flight models and "management" (like approved by the FAA for training purposes where you can log flight time). I'm not sure what hardware it would take to combine the two but I do know that I can't afford it lol. As good as I expect SoW to be as far as a flight sim goes, it won't replace a sim like X-Plane. Conversely, X-Plane won't have any combat which we know Oleg will do very well. Apples and oranges. Two different business models. I'll be buying both  .Splitter
|
|
#8
11-09-2010, 04:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well Splitter,
i really don't see why SoW:BoB couldn't win the civilian market also? Fuel and engine management, weather effects, navigation are present, all it would take is to implement more controls and the adequate planes. I also think that BoB:SoW has a flight model which is at least as complex as any civil flightsim on the market, if not more, and could easily serve both worlds. The civil sims i know are resource hogs, but i think thats just ineffective programming. As the computers got faster and faster very quickly effective programming became redundant and the programmers just added content to a bad base, imho.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects  Last edited by robtek; 11-09-2010 at 04:52 PM. Reason: afterthoughts
|
|
#9
11-09-2010, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Rob,
Could SoW do the job? Yes. But it can't do it as well. If you read about how X-Plane calculates the flight model, all the different parameters and components in the aircraft, it is tremendously complex and resource intensive. Now, it is perfectly possible (and acceptable) to "simulate" some of those calculations with a more simple flight model and many would never notice. A combat sim has to do this because to use all of the parameters would max out the computer before the bullets even began to fly. Then there is the "world" map. Personally, I have very little interest in spending all of my "flight sim" time hopping around England or even France in 1940. I want to fly in the US, Caribbean, Alaska, Canada, and such. 70gigs of flight sim maps give me that option (less detailed obviously). So can SoW do it adequately? For most, that's a big yes. For the devotees of flight sims, not in the near future as far as I can see. BUT! Neither does any flight sim offer any sort of decent combat in the propeller age. Nor can they to the best of my knowledge. Maybe sims like X-Plane are overly complex in their flight models. Maybe each component of a plane having its' own aerofoil, lift, drag, weight, etc., can be approximated adequately. I dunno. Maybe the huge number of calculations that go into such a detailed flight model can be approximated in a more simple yet just as realistic way. I just doubt it, that's all. At least for the next few years. If I am wrong I will be happy dude though .Splitter
|
|
#10
11-09-2010, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And SDK that we plan to release will be at first for these planes. There are a "bit" more complex task because we will need to include also tools for programming of weapons, etc.... Then if all is going ok there will be first jet engines and aircraft. But probably we will not go to the MS area of civil aircraft. There are so many things in WWII era still never modelled that for us and third party it will be enough for many years to do... Our engine and its features are targeted for a combat, for adrenalin and at the same time to and extra quality
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
